"Progressives" have long been wary of "states' rights." That take is unsurprising, since "constitutional arguments" on their behalf have often been a relatively inoffensive way of saying things that are really meant to push for greater "discrimination rights" or "vote suppression rights" or "regulation refusal rights" or "'right to work' rights." The idea was pretty simple: when the national government would require things like integrated schools or the ability to get an abortion, right-leaning members of Congress, with the assistance of their even farther right state legislatures, would resist with every argument possible. As a result, "states rights" came to be associated among Democrats with things like celebration of the Confederacy, George Wallace, Jim Crow, and black lung disease.
But, you know, times change. With Donald Trump in the White House doing everything he can not only to eliminate democracy but to deregulate the country into a large, gold-trimmed, smelly dumpster fire (with his name plastered all over everything except the few remaining windmills), Democrats are starting to depend on state governments to stop him wherever they can.
Is this u-turn necessary in our crisis? Do we need states like Massachusetts and California to use whatever power they have to, e.g., keep elections at least a smidge democratic? Or should we continue to recognize that no system can really be majoritarian where there are political subdivisions with the authority to muck up elections?
Stephen Legomsky has just published an important book that takes the latter tack. He argues that, Trump or no Trump, state power should not only be downgraded, but state governments should be eliminated altogether. I have reviewed his fascinating work here.
Meanwhile, here's what I think is happening to the country whichever choice we make regarding political subdivisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment